Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

On 21st September 1991, Plaintiff fought Defendant for a professional boxing title at a venue in The City. During the contest, Plaintiff sustained a brain haemorrhage after the fight was stopped in the final round. Despite the presence of doctors and an ambulance, a delay of seven minutes occurred before Plaintiff was examined ringside, and nearly half an hour passed before he arrived at a hospital with neurosurgical facilities. Plaintiff suffered serious and permanent brain damage as a result.

The contest was governed by the rules of Company A, which included provisions for medical inspections and the attendance of doctors and ambulance services. Plaintiff brought an action against Company A, alleging that it owed a duty of care to ensure immediate and effective medical treatment at the ringside, which was breached, causing his injuries.

The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, (Judge Kennedy) found in favor of Plaintiff. Company A appealed this judgment, challenging the existence of a duty of care, breach, and causation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company A owed a duty of care to Plaintiff in relation to the provision of immediate and effective medical treatment at boxing contests.
2. Whether Company A breached any such duty by failing to require appropriate medical facilities and protocols at the ringside.
3. Whether any breach of duty caused or materially contributed to Plaintiff's injuries.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Company A contended it owed no duty of care to Plaintiff.
• If a duty existed, Company A argued it did not breach it.
• Any alleged breach did not cause Plaintiff's injuries.
• Company A argued that policy considerations and the nature of its regulatory role precluded imposition of a duty.
• It was submitted that the standard applied by the trial judge was too high, and that the presence of an ambulance with resuscitation equipment was adequate.
• Company A argued that it had not received medical advice recommending ringside resuscitation before the incident.
• It was contended that instructions requiring doctors to enter the ring immediately upon a boxer being counted out were unjustifiable and overly prescriptive.

Respondent's Arguments

• Plaintiff argued that Company A assumed responsibility for the safety and medical care of boxers through its rules and regulations.
• Plaintiff contended that Company A breached its duty by failing to require immediate resuscitation facilities and expertise at the ringside.
• Plaintiff asserted that the absence of such a protocol caused a significant delay in treatment, materially worsening his injuries.
• It was submitted that Plaintiff reasonably relied on Company A to take all reasonable steps to ensure safety and medical care.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining whether Company A owed a duty of care to Plaintiff, focusing on the nature of the relationship and the foreseeability of injury. It found that Company A, as the sole controlling body regulating professional boxing in the jurisdiction, assumed responsibility through its rules and regulations for the safety and medical care of boxers, including Plaintiff. The court emphasized that the duty alleged was novel, involving a regulatory body imposing medical care obligations indirectly through rules rather than providing treatment directly.

The court analyzed established principles from negligence law, particularly the requirement of proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. It distinguished Company A's role from public authorities like fire and police services, noting that Company A actively controlled the sport and medical provisions, creating a close relationship with boxers who relied on its expertise and rules for safety.

On breach, the court reviewed evidence regarding the medical treatment standards for brain injuries, the treatment Plaintiff received, and the medical facilities and protocols in place at the time. It found that Company A failed to require the provision of immediate resuscitation equipment and trained personnel at the ringside, despite the existence of a standard medical protocol since at least 1980. The court rejected Company A's arguments that the existing ambulance and medical arrangements were adequate and that the standard was too high.

Regarding causation, the court accepted that the delay in medical treatment caused by the absence of appropriate ringside facilities and protocols materially worsened Plaintiff's injuries. It found that had the recommended protocol been in place, treatment would have commenced significantly earlier, improving Plaintiff's outcome. The court applied established causation principles allowing recovery despite uncertain precise outcomes.

Overall, the court held that Company A owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that breach caused Plaintiff's injuries. It dismissed the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED THE APPEAL, affirming the High Court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

The court held that Company A, as the regulatory body controlling professional boxing and medical provisions, owed a duty of care to boxers to ensure reasonable medical precautions were taken. Company A breached this duty by failing to require immediate resuscitation facilities and trained personnel at the ringside, which caused Plaintiff's serious brain injury.

The decision has the direct effect of holding Company A liable to Plaintiff for negligence. The court noted the novelty of the duty but did not establish a broad precedent extending to other sports regulatory bodies, emphasizing the unique features of professional boxing and Company A's control. No wider policy immunity was recognized for non-profit regulatory bodies in this context.